Revised Section M_0005.pdf

Amendment 5; Attachment 3

REVISED SECTION M

Revised September 4, 2020

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Award without Discussion

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revisions.

2. Evaluation Approach

This evaluation will make use of the FAR Part 15 Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation process. The LPTA process is a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits the best value to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price. It applies to both commercial and non-commercial acquisitions. In order for an offer to be considered technically acceptable the offer must be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” in both Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors.

3. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows.

Step 1 – Rank all offers by price and evaluate price reasonableness from lowest price to highest price.

Step 2 – Evaluate the lowest priced offer for technical acceptability.

Step 3 – Evaluate the lowest priced offer for past performance acceptability.

Action/Step-1 (Price Evaluation)

(1) Government will verify that all offerors have provided pricing for each item on the Price Schedule. Failure to provide pricing for any item will result in an offerors proposal being rated as Technically Unacceptable and will no longer be considered for award.

(2) All offerors will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the total lump sum of the base plus all additive items on the Price Schedule. The Government will evaluate all offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all additives to the total price for the base requirement. Evaluation of additive items will not obligate the Government to award the additives at the time of award. However, the Government may choose to award additive items after award but before project completion.

Action/Step-2 (**Technical Evaluation).

Technical Know-How and Recent and Relevant Experience

(1) The Government will verify that the offeror has submitted a minimum of two (2) recent and relevant projects completed within the last five (5) years which show the offerors technical experience in irrigation construction and the minimum contract/project information requested has been provided.

Amendment 5; Attachment 3

(2) The Government will then evaluate the projects descriptions and technical explanations provided and assign a rating in accordance with the rating table below. If contractor is found to be “Acceptable” the evaluation will continue to the next step of the award process.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Information provided demonstrates the offeror has the technical know-how to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Information provided does not demonstrates the offeror has the technical know-how to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Action/Step-3 (**Past Performance Evaluation).

A. Government will verify and check on contractors Past Performance information provided and any other additional information provided is recent, relevant or not relevant. This process will include contacting the current Points of Contacts provided.

B. Offeror may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

C. The Government will also use any information available in PPIRS, CPARS, and FAPIIS during this process.

D. Government will then assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the rating table below. If contractor is found to be “Acceptable” the evaluation will continue to the next step of the award process.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (see note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

**In order for an offer to be considered Technically Acceptable the offer must be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” in both Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors.

4. Award Process

A. If the lowest priced evaluated is considered a technically acceptable offer that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

B. If the lowest priced offeror is not considered technically acceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is determined to be technically acceptable or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and the availability of funds.